Uncovering Lateral Movement Using Authentication Logs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Network infiltrations due to advanced persistent threats (APTs) have significantly grown in recent years. Their primary objective is to gain unauthorized access to network assets, compromise system and data. APTs are stealthy and remain dormant for an extended period of time, which makes their detection challenging. In this article, we leverage machine learning (ML) to detect hosts in a network that are a target of an APT attack. We evaluate a number of ML classifiers to detect susceptible hosts in the Los Alamos National Lab dataset. We (i) scrutinize graph-based features extracted from host authentication logs, (ii) use feature engineering to reduce dimensionality, (iii) explore balancing the training dataset using over- and under-sampling techniques, (iv) evaluate numerous supervised ML techniques and their ensemble, (v) compare our classification model to the state-of-the-art approaches that leverage the same dataset, and show that our model outperforms them with respect to prediction performance and overhead, and (vi) perturb the attack patterns to study the influence of change in attack frequency and scale on classification performance, and propose a solution for such adversarial behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".